IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/imk/report/168-2021.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Makroökonomische Auswirkungen eines kreditfinanzierten Investitionsprogramms in Deutschland

Author

Listed:
  • Sebastian Dullien

    (Macroeconomic Policy Institute (IMK))

  • Ekaterina Jürgens

    (Macroeconomic Policy Institute (IMK))

  • Christoph Paetz

    (Macroeconomic Policy Institute (IMK))

  • Sebastian Watzka

    (Macroeconomic Policy Institute (IMK))

Abstract

Die Simulationen eines kreditfinanzierten Investitionsprogramms in Höhe von 460 Mrd. Euro im makroökonomischen Modell NiGEM zeigen, dass sich eine solche öffentliche Investitionsoffensive bei konservativen Modellannahmen spätestens nach 30 Jahren selbst finanziert hat. Zu diesem Zeitpunkt ist die Schuldenquote dann auf das Niveau gefallen, welches sich ohne das Programm ergeben hätte. Auch in der konservativsten Simulationsvariante kann von einer Belastung künftiger Generationen durch das Investitionsprogramm keine Rede sein. Im Gegenteil: Schon in der Grundversion des Modells ginge es künftigen Generationen mit dem kreditfinanzierten Investitionsprogramm wirtschaftlich besser als ohne, weil das Bruttoinlandsprodukt (BIP) 2050 höher wäre, die Schuldenquote aber nicht. In alternativen Modellvarianten rückt dieser Zeitpunkt sogar näher in die Gegenwart und die Argumente für ein solches Investitionsprogramm sind noch einmal stärker. Das Investitionsprogramm führt zu erheblichen Wachstumseffekten. Längerfristig liegt das BIP um 3 % bis 4 % über seinem Niveau ohne Investitions­offensive. Außerdem regt das Programm die private Investitionstätigkeit deutlich an, sodass die Unternehmensinvestitionen 4 % bis 5 % über ihrem Niveau ohne Programm liegen. Diese Effekte werden noch verstärkt, wenn das Modell eine Erhöhung der Produktivität des privaten Kapitalstocks durch verbesserte öffentliche Infrastruktur berücksichtigt.

Suggested Citation

  • Sebastian Dullien & Ekaterina Jürgens & Christoph Paetz & Sebastian Watzka, 2021. "Makroökonomische Auswirkungen eines kreditfinanzierten Investitionsprogramms in Deutschland," IMK Report 168-2021, IMK at the Hans Boeckler Foundation, Macroeconomic Policy Institute.
  • Handle: RePEc:imk:report:168-2021
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.boeckler.de/pdf/p_imk_report_168_2021.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hubertus Bardt & Sebastian Dullien & Michael Hüther & Katja Rietzler, 2019. "Für eine solide Finanzpolitik: Investitionen ermöglichen!," IMK Report 152-2019, IMK at the Hans Boeckler Foundation, Macroeconomic Policy Institute.
    2. Aschauer, David Alan, 1989. "Does public capital crowd out private capital?," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 171-188, September.
    3. Baxter, Marianne & King, Robert G, 1993. "Fiscal Policy in General Equilibrium," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(3), pages 315-334, June.
    4. Till Baldenius & Sebastian Kohl & Moritz Schularick, 2021. "Die neue Wohnungsfrage: Gewinner und Verlierer des deutschen Immobilienbooms," ECONtribute Policy Brief Series 019, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sebastian Dullien & Simon Gerads Iglesias & Michael Huether & Katja Rietzler, 2024. "Herausforderungen fuer die Schuldenbremse - Investitionsbedarfe in der Infrastruktur und fuer die Transformation," IMK Policy Brief 168-2024, IMK at the Hans Boeckler Foundation, Macroeconomic Policy Institute.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Beznoska, Martin & Kauder, Björn & Obst, Thomas, 2021. "Investitionen, Humankapital und Wachstumswirkungen öffentlicher Ausgaben," IW policy papers 2/2021, Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft (IW) / German Economic Institute.
    2. Sebastian Dullien & Ekaterina Jürgens & Christoph Paetz & Sebastian Watzka, 2021. "Wachstums- und Verschuldungseffekte einer kreditfinanzierten öffentlichen Investitionsoffensive [Growth and Debt Effects of a Credit-Financed Public Investment Offensive]," Wirtschaftsdienst, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 101(9), pages 700-705, September.
    3. Otto, Glenn & Voss, Graham, 1996. "Public Capital and Private Production in Australia," MPRA Paper 52110, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Funashima, Yoshito & Ohtsuka, Yoshihiro, 2019. "Spatial crowding-out and crowding-in effects of government spending on the private sector in Japan," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 35-48.
    5. Benjamin Faber & Cecile Gaubert, 2019. "Tourism and Economic Development: Evidence from Mexico's Coastline," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(6), pages 2245-2293, June.
    6. Chatterjee, Santanu & Sakoulis, Georgios & Turnovsky, Stephen J., 2003. "Unilateral capital transfers, public investment, and economic growth," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1077-1103, December.
    7. Jesús Botero García & Humberto Franco González & Álvaro Hurtado Rendón & Manuel Mesa, 2012. "Una aplicación de un modelo neoclásico DSGE con política fiscal," Documentos de Trabajo de Valor Público 10567, Universidad EAFIT.
    8. Valerie A. Ramey, 2020. "The Macroeconomic Consequences of Infrastructure Investment," NBER Chapters, in: Economic Analysis and Infrastructure Investment, pages 219-268, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Davide Furceri & Ricardo M. Sousa, 2011. "Does Government Spending Crowd Out Private Consumption and Investment?," World Economics, World Economics, 1 Ivory Square, Plantation Wharf, London, United Kingdom, SW11 3UE, vol. 12(4), pages 153-170, October.
    10. Valter Di Giacinto & Giacinto Micucci & Pasqualino Montanaro, 2012. "Network effects of public transport infrastructure: Evidence on Italian regions," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 91(3), pages 515-541, August.
    11. Pina, Alvaro Manuel & St. Aubyn, Miguel, 2005. "Comparing macroeconomic returns on human and public capital: An empirical analysis of the Portuguese case (1960-2001)," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 585-598, July.
    12. Patrizio Lecca & Peter McGregor & Kim Swales, 2010. "Balanced Budget Government Spending in a Small Open Regional Economy," Working Papers 1020, University of Strathclyde Business School, Department of Economics.
    13. Fisher, Walter H. & Turnovsky, Stephen J., 1997. "Congestion and Public Capital," Economics Series 47, Institute for Advanced Studies.
    14. Valter Di Giacinto & Giacinto Micucci & Pasqualino Montanaro, 2010. "Dynamic Macroeconomic Effects of Public Capital: Evidence from Regional Italian Data," Giornale degli Economisti, GDE (Giornale degli Economisti e Annali di Economia), Bocconi University, vol. 69(1), pages 29-66, April.
    15. Voss, Graham M., 2002. "Public and private investment in the United States and Canada," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 641-664, August.
    16. Boehm, Christoph E., 2020. "Government consumption and investment: Does the composition of purchases affect the multiplier?," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 80-93.
    17. Wesselbaum, Dennis, 2015. "Sectoral labor market effects of fiscal spending," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 19-35.
    18. Buffie, Edward F., 1995. "Public investment, private investment, and inflation," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 19(5-7), pages 1223-1247.
    19. Gu, Yanwei & Guo, Jing & Liang, Xiao & Zhao, Yajun, 2022. "Does the debt-growth link differ across private and public debt? Evidence from China," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    20. Davide Furceri & Ricardo M. Sousa, 2009. "The Impact of Government Spending on the Private Sector: Crowding-out versus Crowding-in Effects"," NIPE Working Papers 6/2009, NIPE - Universidade do Minho.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:imk:report:168-2021. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sabine Nemitz (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/imkhbde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.